DOJ Ruling on BATCo's Request for Summary JudgementThis matter is now before the Court on British American Tobacco (Investments) Limited's ("BATCo") Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion"). Upon consideration of the Motion, the Opposition, the Reply, and the entire record herein, and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, Defendant BATCo's Motion is denied.
- 13,051 bytes.

Blumenthal Letter on AdAge's Allegation on Legacy AdsIn a March 16 AdAge.com article, you report that I have offered, or offered to discuss, reigning in[sic] tough anti-smoking ad content in return for continued industry funding of those ads. That report is not correct. While I am generally willing to speak to those who disagree with me, I did not say that I would -- and in fact I would not -- consider limiting or reining in tough effective anti-smoking ads in any way.- 1,587 bytes.

Tuttle Decision (7/30/04)As a young professional baseball player Bill Tuttle (Tuttle) began chewing smokeless tobacco in 1955, and continued chewing regularly until 1993. His product of choice was Beech-Nut, which was manufactured by Lorillard Tobacco Company and later acquired in 1988 by National Tobacco Company. In October 1993, Tuttle was diagnosed with oral cancer, and he later died in July 1998 from related complications. On September 21, 1999, Tuttle’s widow, Gloria Tuttle1 (Mrs. Tuttle) filed a lawsuit against several smokeless tobacco manufacturers and their trade association, alleging both common law claims of negligence, fraud, and civil conspiracy, as well as statutory claims alleging violations of several Minnesota consumer protection statutes. Following extensive discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. The district court granted summary judgment on the claims and entered judgment in favor of the defendants. Mrs. Tuttle appeals.
We reverse the district court’s ruling on the statute of limitations, but conclude Mrs. Tuttle’s claims are legally insufficient, because her claims fail for want of admissible proof of causation and reliance. We, therefore, affirm the district court’s judgment.- 31,327 bytes.

031215 Final Rylander Judgement in GenevaB. a) During the incriminated press conference, Jean-Charles Rielle and Pascal Diethelm made public a press release drafted by them and entitled:
"Geneva at the centre of an unprecedented scientific fraud: overwhelming evidence against the activities of 'Geneva' professor Ragnar Rylander!"
In substance, in the text they accused Ragnar Rylander of having been secretly employed by Philip Morris USA for over 25 years and paid by Fabriques de Tabac Réunies, Neuchâtel, while being attached to the Institut de médecine sociale et préventive [Institute for Social and Preventive Medicine], in which capacity he was in charge of several of the Institute’s research projects . . . . According to Jean-Charles Rielle and Pascal Diethelm, the conclusion reached by one of Professor Rylander's projects on respiratory infections in young children and environmental factors, namely that tobacco smoke did not modify risks of illness in young children, was mind-boggling and, when one knew that he was one of Philip Morris's most highly paid consultants, tended to call into question the objectivity of his work. . .
b) Ragnar Rylander, environmental physician, former researcher and lecturer at various institutes and universities, notably the Universities of Stockholm, Gothenburg and Geneva, filed a criminal complaint on 18 April 2001 for defamation, or even calumny, against Jean-Charles Rielle and Pascal Diethelm. In substance, in his complaint Ragnar Rylander explained that he had never been employed by Philip Morris, that he had never oriented his research to suit the desires of Philip Morris or other cigarette manufacturers in return for funding for his research, and that he had never allowed Philip Morris to inspect his research or to influence it in any way whatsoever . . .
d) The following chronological account of the relations between Ragnar Rylander and Philip Morris is based on the exhibits produced by Jean-Charles Rielle and Pascal Diethelm and available for the most part on Philip Morris's website (www.pmdocs.com) and on that of the tobacco industry (www.tobaccoarchives.com). . .
An examination of the incriminated press release shows that the expression “scientific fraud” concerns only Ragnar Rylander’s deception regarding his links with Philip Morris and not the fact, criticised later on, that he had altered a data base so that the results of a study might correspond to the expected outcome, as it emerges from the very letter that Ragnar Rylander sent to Thomas Osdene concerning the study on passive smoking and respiratory diseases in children. . . .
A deception that, as is the case here, spanned some thirty years and was kept up even at the cost of lies . . . . certainly deserves the qualification that was used.
Geneva has indeed been the centre of an unprecedented scientific fraud in so far as Ragnar Rylander, acting in his capacity of associate professor at the University, took advantage of its influence and reputation, not hesitating to put science at the service of money and not heeding the mission entrusted to this public institution . . .
Having re-examined the whole file, the Criminal Division reaches the conclusion that the veracity of the incriminated expression has also been demonstrated, the expression in question constituting simultaneously a fact and a value judgement.
The appeal is therefore upheld, the judgement of the Tribunal de Police of 24 May 2002 annulled, and the appellants are acquitted.- 120,491 bytes.

2004/02/24 DOJ v. Philip Morris, et.al.This matter is now before the Court on Defendants'1 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Claims that Defendants Advertised, Marketed, and Promoted Cigarettes to Youth and Fraudulently Denied Such Conduct. Upon consideration of the Motion, the Government's Opposition and the entire record herein, and for the reasons stated
- 40,267 bytes.

04/02/24 OLYMPIC v. HUSAINHeld: The conduct here constitutes an “accident” under Article 17. Pp. 4–12. (a) The parties do not dispute Saks’ definition of “accident,” but
2 OLYMPIC AIRWAYS v. HUSAIN Syllabus
they disagree about which event should be the focus of the “accident” inquiry. The Court’s reasoning in Saks sheds light on whether the flight attendant’s refusal to assist a passenger in a medical crisis is the proper focus of the “accident” inquiry. In Saks, the Court focused on “what causes can be considered accidents,” 470 U. S., at 404, and did not suggest that only one event could be the “accident.” Indeed, the Court recognized that “[a]ny injury is the product of a chain of causes.” Id., at 406. Thus, for purposes of the “accident” inquiry, a plaintiff need only prove that “some link in the chain was an unusual or unexpected event external to the passenger.” - 55,405 bytes.

Attorneys General Letter to MPAAWe, the undersigned Attorneys General, write to ask you, with your longstanding prominence and influence in the American motion picture industry, to exercise your exemplary leadership to effect potentially far reaching benefits for public health. A Dartmouth Medical School study released last month confirms what other research has suggested: reducing the prevalence of cigarette smoking in motion pictures could significantly decrease the initiation of smoking in youth. With this new evidence of how effective reducing smoking in motion pictures would be in preventing youth smoking, the motion picture industry stands in a uniquely powerful position to bring about a profoundly beneficial impact on the health and well-being of millions of Americans. . .
The motion picture industry, therefore, is uniquely situated to bring about sweeping change to prevent youth smoking. Simply by reducing the depiction of smoking in movies, the industry can protect our nation's youth from the known perils of smoking. Mr. Valenti, you have demonstrated your leadership and willingness in the past to join forces to protect our youth from violence in the media. We are hopeful you will use your best efforts again here to rally the motion picture industry to move from being a source of the problem to being recognized as a critically important force in solving the nation's deadly problem of youth smoking.
We look forward to hearing your ideas about how the motion picture industry will pursue this tremendous opportunity. Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration of this important matter.- 7,386 bytes.

RJR, LORILLARD v. CALIFORNIA 7/22/03Two tobacco companies bring suit against officials of California’s Department of Health Services. They challenge the state’s anti-tobacco advertisements, which are funded through a special surtax on wholesale tobacco sales. The tobacco companies claim that the surtax forces them to fund ads with which they disagree, and that this violates their right to free speech under the First Amendment. They also complain that the ads interfere with their right to trial by jury under the Seventh Amendment and unfairly stigmatize them in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.. . .
Hence, because the Seventh Amendment claim fails as a matter of law, the due process claim likewise fails.
Although plaintiffs fail to state a claim for denial of procedural due process, if the plaintiffs truly believe that the challenged advertisements are both provably false and disparaging to their business reputations, they are free to seek relief against the State of California or its officials in a defamation action under state law.31 - 95,761 bytes.

TOBACCO COMPANIES V. ENGLE APPEALIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT . . .
In conclusion, the entire judgment must be reversed and the class decertified. The class fails the requirements of predominance and superiority. Any initially imagined savings of judicial resources and expense, have been dispelled by the ensuing litigation and the overwhelming procedural problems inherent in the certification of this type of smokers’ litigation. Those class members whose claims have not yet been tried, should be allowed to proceed individually.
- 122,386 bytes.

Susan Miles et al v Philip Morris Inc.Illinois Circuit Court Judge Nicholas Byron orders Philip Morris to pay $10.1 billion in damages for misleading smokers into believing that low-tar cigarettes are safer than regular brands.
"The Court finds that the term 'Lights' not only conveyed a message of reduced harm and safety, but also conveyed to Class members that the 'Lights' cigarette product was lower in tar and nicotine. . . . Specifically, Dr. Joel Cohen, a Professor at the University of Florida who has studied consumer behavior (specifically in the context of tobacco) for over twenty years, established as a factual matter that Philip Morris fully understood (prior to the launch of Marlboro Lights and Cambridge Lights) smokers' concerns regarding the negative health impact of smoking.
The testimony and documents offered at trial demonstrate that Philip Morris' initial response to this growing health concern was to create a disinformation environment wherein Philip Morris through its own public statements (and though its participation in the Tobacco Institute) knowingly and falsely disputed scientific conclusions that established a connection between smoking and diseases. Philip Morris' strategy was to create doubt about the negative health implications of smoking without actually denying these allegations. The evidence offered at trial establishes that Philip Morris continued this disinformation campaign through the mid-1990's.
the course of conduct by Philip Morris related to its fraud in this case is outrageous, both because Philip Morris' motive was evil and the acts showed a reckless disregard for the consumers' rights. As a consequence, punitive damages are appropriate in this case."- 98,920 bytes.

SMOKE WITHOUT FEAR (1954)This booklet represents the kind of damaging information that appeared in the lay media in the mid-1950's, courtesy of the tobacco industry and its public relations firm Hill and Knowlton, shortly after the first medical reports emerged saying cigarette smoking caused cancer, emphysema, and heart disease. The author of this piece, Donald Cooley, worked with Hill and Knowlton (H&K) to produce this 48 page, low-priced paperback booklet "published by the editors of True, the Man's Magazine" designed to be sold on newsstands in 1954.
A July 31, 1954 report on activities by H&K states, "Considerable information and assistance was provided Donald G. Cooley in the preparation for his story in True magazine. This entailed conferences with the author to work on factual - 118,005 bytes. Anne Landman/Donald G. Cooley

040506 DOJ - Denial of Partial Summary JudgementIV. CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, the Government is not entitled to partial summary judgment that Defendants caused the mail and wire transmissions underlying the 145 racketeering acts alleged, and its Motion is denied.
- 12,555 bytes.

040506 DOJ - Denial of Full Summary Judgement
III. CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on all claims on the grounds that there is no reasonable likelihood of RICO violations, and their Motion is denied.
- 14,368 bytes.

DOJ BAT Australian Documents Ruling, 3/30/04On April 14, 2003, the Court issued Order #343, adopting the Special Master’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) #102, which required BATCo to produce within thirty days certain documents that were in the possession of its affiliate British American Tobacco Australia Services, Ltd. (“BATAS”). . . .
This Court has previously observed that “the issue of BATCo’s control over BATAS documents has already been fully and fairly litigated in this case.” Oct. 3 Mem. Op. at 6. The Court has already explicitly rejected as untimely BATCo’s attempt to present new arguments and evidence on the “control” issue.
The evidence relates directly to BATCo’s arguments about its alleged lack of control of BATAS documents and therefore, should have been submitted months ago when that issue was first being litigated. The Court will not now consider this untimely argument and evidence.The Court agrees that the contempt finding against BATCo should be lifted, inasmuch as the requirement of Orders #419 and #343, the production or logging of the documents, has been satisfied. Therefore, the contempt finding of Order #419 will be lifted as of January 15, 2004, the date by which it is undisputed that BATAS had provided a compliant log to the Government.Before the Court is BATCo’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order No. 454 and the Court’s Underlying “Control” Determination (“Motion”). Upon consideration of the Motion, the United States’ Opposition, and BATCo’s Reply, and for the reasons explained in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the Court concludes that the Motion should be granted in part and denied in part. Wherefore, it is hereby:
ORDERED that BATCo’s Motion for Reconsideration of its “control” over the documents subject to Order #343 is denied; and it is further
ORDERED that Order #419 is vacated as of January 15, 2004.
- 8,694 bytes.

040114 EU v. PHILIP MORRISAppeal of a judgment dismissing RICO and related state-law claims in three related cases. The European Community, several individual European nations, and certain
Departments of the Republic of Colombia brought these RICO actions against various tobacco companies, alleging that the tobacco companies engaged in cigarette smuggling and money laundering in their territories. The actions seek to recoup lost tax revenue and funds spent on law enforcement, as well as secure various forms of equitable relief designed to ensure that defendants comply with plaintiffs’ revenue laws. With respect to the action against Japan Tobacco and its affiliates, European Community v. Japan Tobacco, Inc., No. 02-7323 (2d Cir.), we hold that the district court did not have jurisdiction over the complaint, as none of the defendants had been served at the time the district court dismissed the action on the merits. With respect to the remaining two actions, European Community v. RJR Nabisco, Inc., No. 02-7330 (2d Cir.), and Department of Amazonas v. Philip Morris Companies, No. 02-7325 (2d Cir.), we hold that the smuggling claims are foreclosed by Attorney General of Canada v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., 268 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1000 (2002), which held that the revenue rule bars a RICO suit brought by a foreign sovereign to enforce its tax laws.
Finally, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing plaintiffs’ money laundering claims without prejudice and requiring them to file a new action if they choose to amend their complaint.
AFFIRMED in part and VACATED and REMANDED in part.
- 54,732 bytes.

NARRAGANSETT TRIBE V. RHODE ISLANDThe Court concludes that the State properly may impose its tax on cigarettes sold at the tribal smoke shop located on the settlement lands, and may enforce the law’s criminal provisions against noncompliance that occurs on the settlement lands. This conclusion is driven by the finding that the legal incidence of the State’s cigarette tax scheme falls on the purchaser or consumer of cigarettes, and not on the Tribe. Under the State’s cigarette tax scheme, the Tribe (like other retail sellers of cigarettes) acts merely as an agent for the collection of the tax. It is appropriate for the State to impose this burden on the Tribe; and such a burden does not amount to taxation of the Tribe, nor does it violate the Tribe’s sovereign rights. Consequently, the Tribe must comply with Rhode Island’s applicable tax laws if it wishes to continue to sell cigarette products on the settlement lands.- 83,353 bytes.

Waxman Letter to House Committee on Energy and Commerce on Philip Morris Document Destruction (text)I am writing to urge you to investigate what appears to be two years of document destruction by Philip Morris Incorporated, in violation of a federal court order. This document destruction was not disclosed until June 2002 and has the effect of denying the Department of Justice access to company documents in key areas of investigation, including the marketing and sale of tobacco products, the lobbying of government officials, and the health effects of smoking.
Philip Morris's document destruction appears to have been caused by a "print and retain" policy that recalls the infamous "document retention" policy of Arthur Andersen. The tobacco company not only had evidence that the policy would lead to document destruction, but it also delayed fixing the problem for years. In fact, internal company documents repeatedly recognized the inadequacy of the "print and retain" policy and urged the adoption of new measures. . .
The Energy and Commerce Committee has taken the lead in Congress in investigating document destruction. On January 24, 2002, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing entitled: "Destruction of Enron-Related Documents by Andersen Personnel." At this hearing, Subcommittee Chairman Greenwood stated that Congress had a duty to bring "any wrongdoing into the bright light of public scrutiny so that those responsible suffer the consequences." 34
The same logic applies to document destruction by Philip Morris. For this reason, I urge a full investigation.
- 21,064 bytes. Henry A. Waxman

Subject: Draft 16 of Spitzer ETS StudyRJR counsel Mary E. Ward, on the draft of a secondhand smoke study that basically agreed with most other studies that secondhand smoke is harmful to nonsmokers.- 10,753 bytes. Mary E. Ward

73 Gallup SG Poll for MOThis four-page document, "A Review of Awareness of the Surgeon General's Warning by Brand", is a survey done for Philip Morris, Inc. by the polling firm of Gallup & Robinson in 1973 to gauge public awareness of the U.S. Surgeon General's warning about the health hazards of smoking. The document was one of over 250,000 that Philip Morris was allowed to keep confidential following the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement . . .
The survey shows that only 3.1% of smokers were aware of the Surgeon General's health warning about the dangers of smoking at that time. An average of only 5.7% of the total sampled population were aware of the warnings.
The survey is significant because of the frequent tobacco industry claim that
knowledge of government warnings about the dangers of of smoking was widespread at that time. This survey shows that awareness of government health warnings in reality was actually very low, and even lower among smokers than in the overall population.- 2,054 bytes. 2003-02-11 Anne Landman

20040526 DOJ Kessler Disgorgement Orders CTR and TI claim that they are entitled to summary judgment on all claims against them because the Government's allegations are insufficient as a matter of law to support an order of relief under Section 1964(a). See Motion, at 13. As this Court held, both the injunctive and disgorgement remedies which the Government seeks in this action are equitable and thus require a showing that there is a "likelihood of future violations." Philip Morris, 116 F.Supp.2d
at 146; Memo. Op. on Joint Defs.' Mot. for Partial Sum. J. Dismissing the Govt's Disgorgement Claims, at 7. Accordingly, CTR and TI argue that the Government cannot prove any likelihood of future violations by these two entities because they have ceased operations and have been dissolved. Id. at 14. CTR and TI also claim that they are entitled to summary judgment on all claims because the relief the Government seeks in this case would involve the Court disrupting New York's administrative efforts dismantling these two entities, in violation of the Burford abstention doctrine.
- 46,420 bytes.

REPORT TO CONGRESSIONAL REQUESTERS: USDA’S FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE LACKS SPECIFIC GUIDANCE FOR CONGRESSIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON PROMOTING TOBACCO (PDF)
We are recommending that the Secretary of Agriculture (1) develop guidance to implement the legislative restrictions on promoting the sale or export of tobacco or tobacco products that fully reflects FAS programs and activities and (2) review FAS’s ongoing activities to determine whether they are consistent with those restrictions.
In commenting on a draft of this report (see app. III), USDA disagreed with our finding that the guidance of the State cable does not fully implement FAS’s tobacco-related prohibitions, but USDA noted that, in response to our recommendation, it will prepare separate guidance for FAS staff overseas and will cite any needed clarifications. USDA also disagreed with our recommendation that FAS assess its tobacco-related activities— specifically, the collection and dissemination of information on tobacco— to clarify whether these activities are consistent with FAS’s legislative restrictions on the promotion of tobacco exports. USDA stated that it does not consider these activities to be within the scope of its restrictions.
However, USDA has not provided us with any documentation in support of this position. Because FAS’s mission is largely promotional, we maintain our recommendation that FAS review its ongoing activities and determine whether they are consistent with its restrictions.- 47,084 bytes.

1998 Ron Tully letter on Document Destruction at TDCIn a letter to Reemtsma general counsel Dr. Marion Funck, Ron Tully, apparently in a war with TDC board members, discusses possible illegalities--including his own personal destruction of nearly 1 million documents--that TDC and INFOTAB engaged in under his watch as an executive.- 13,937 bytes.